The notion of freedom in Krishnamurti with reference to Sartre:

(1): the world and the human being

(2): the similarity and differences between Sartres philosophy
and Krishnamurtis philosophy
(3): the brief overview of Sartres ontology with reference to
being-in-itself [en-soi] and being-for-itself [pour-soi]
(4): Krishnamurtis concept of freedom with reference to
awareness
(5): some observations and questions
(Note: these sub-topics are random, there will be overlapping in
many instances)
The words are used in all most all the instances of
communication to communicate, but the words are not liquid and
therefore they can not really communicate as desired by us. This
becomes apparent to us when we read Krishnamurti. What
Krishnamurti is doing by writing or talking to us is simply
pointing towards the dimensions. But even if I say this much, that
he is pointing towards some hitherto unexplained dimensions
immediately there will be lots of problems to be faced. If we say
that the organized systems can not lead us to truth, as truth is a
pathless land, then the truth is pathless land becomes a new
dimension to truth. Krishnamurti is aware of this and hence he
says that words can not communicate. But we have to take
recourse to the things world offers us, and therefore Im engaged
in this fallacious activity. Whatever I will read in this classroom,
whatever youll hear in this classroom will fall short of this
existential reality. But at least we are aware of it and hence we
can forgive ourselves and proceed.

(1): the world and the human being

To understand the world without considering the

involvement of human beings is problematic. Take for example;
Im now looking at tree. Can I describe the tree totally in its
essence? The answer will be no, because the very act of

description will involve the describer. We can look at tree from

one angle; hence the human involvement in the world is
essential. If we ask the question what is world and answer that
world is everything that is, this creates lots of problems. How
can we be aware of everything that is? So, at the most we can
say that the world is everything that is perceived by me. Hence in
the definition of the world the perspective of the definer will
come in to the picture. The expression world then would seem
always to include the point of view of the person who is talking
about the world. It does not stand for something altogether
independent of those who talk about it, but rather for their total
environment as they are aware of it. But the world is not just
everything that is but everything that forms the human environs
and provides the setting in which human life has to be lived. But
when I say that world is everything that is perceived by me,
when I say that the definition of world should necessarily involve
the point of view of the definer immediately there will be the
question of metaphysical debates of realism and idealism. The
involvement of the perceiver does not mean for me that he
creates the world in his mind, but it simply means that the
definition can not leave the definer outside the definition.
Whether these trees, rock, mountains, oceans were there before
the human arrival or not, whether the mountain is just the bundle
of sensations and perceptions of the perceiver is not the point.
The point is that when we are going to describe the world well
have to admit the world and the viewer both. When we accept
this, there comes tremendous freedom. Krishnamurti says that
world is nothing but present fact, not the abstraction. So, in the
context of freedom this is going to be very important to
understand.

(2): the similarity and differences between Sartres philosophy

and Krishnamurtis philosophy

The notion of freedom in Sartres philosophy and Krishnamurtis

philosophy (is it appropriate to call Krishnamurtis vision

philosophy)? Is very interesting to study. Both would reject the

traditional authority, both would emphasise on freedom and
responsibility. But there are fundamental differences between
these two, as we shall see, for Sartre, freedom can not be there
without thought, whereas for Krishnamurti freedom is choiceless
awareness, which drops thoughts altogether. For Sartre, freedom
consists in the struggle for becoming, (en-soi transcending the
situation), whereas for Krishnamurti freedom comes with
awareness which is instantaneous. For existentialists (especially
for Sartre) freedom was something intrinsic and which is
necessary for human beings to define their essences. (Essence The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to
characterize or identify something. The inherent, unchanging
nature of a thing or class of things. Phenomenology and
existentialism aim to observe the essence of objects. In
existentialism, ones essence is his or her role in the universe.
This essence changes constantly with each decision made). Like
Krishnamurti the existentialists conclude that human choice is
subjective, because individuals finally must make their own
choices without help from such external standards as laws,
ethical rules, or traditions. (However, the notion of choice for
Krishnamurti immediately brings conflict. We will deal with the
question of conflict later on when well ask the question about
awareness and its consequences.) Because individuals make
their own choices, they are free; but because they freely choose,
they are completely responsible for their choices. The
existentialists
emphasize
that
freedom
is
necessarily
accompanied by responsibility. Furthermore, since individuals
are forced to choose for themselves, they have their freedom--and therefore their responsibility---thrust upon them. They are
condemned to be free. For existentialism, responsibility is the
dark side of freedom. When individuals realize that they are
completely responsible for their decisions, actions, and beliefs,
they are overcome by anxiety. They try to escape from this
anxiety by ignoring or denying their freedom and their
responsibility. But because this amounts to ignoring or denying
their actual situation, they succeed only in deceiving themselves.
The existentialists criticize this flight from freedom and

responsibility into self-deception. They insist that individuals

must accept full responsibility for their behavior, no matter how
difficult. If an individual is to live meaningfully and authentically,
he or she must become fully aware of the true character of the
.human situation and bravely accept it

(3): the brief overview of Sartres ontology with reference to

being-in-itself [en-soi] and being-for-itself [pour-soi]

To understand Sartres position in this matter well have to

briefly examine his ontology.
Sartre applied the French "en-soi," which loosely means "in-self,"
to describe the state of being of objects -- things without selfawareness. Sartre's "Being-in-Itself" represents the idea that
only concrete phenomena have any ontological status; only the
concrete is real. Edmund Husserl's approach to phenomenology
was embraced by Sartre as a basis for existential exploration. To
simplify this concept, Sartre might state that a rock is a rock -- it
cannot change what it is. In this manner, Sartre suggests there is
facticity, or truth, in the existence of some objects. In contrast to
"Being-in-Itself" is Sartre's "Being-for-Itself" -- a state of selfawareness and control. Professor Walter Kaufmann explains the
differences thusly: The pour-soi (for-itself) is that being which is
aware of itself: man. Its structure is different from that of the ensoi, and the phenomenon of self-deception serves the author as a
clue: what must the pour-soi be like in order to make selfdeception possible? - Existentialism; Kaufmann, p. 43
Sartre's "Being-for-Itself" describes human consciousness
as possessing the characteristics of incompleteness and
potency, with an indeterminate structure. The absence of a
Creator leaves man without a predefined nature. Without a
nature, individuals are nothingness. Lack of everything.
Nothingness, Sartre thought, was freedom and free will. Applying
this definition of nothingness to individuals, mankind is freedom.
Sartre contended that not only was the individual free, but the
essence of mankind was freedom. As a result of this freedom,

individuals are responsible for all their actions and thoughts.

What makes self-deception possible, according to Sartre, is that
the pour-soi differs from the en-soi or, to be concrete: a man is
not a coward, a waiter, if I am six feet tall, that is that. Say, as
this table is two feet high. Being a coward or a waiter, however,
is different: it depends on ever new decisions. - Existentialism;
Kaufmann, p. 44 one might be a philosopher, while tomorrow
that same person might wait tables. To Sartre it becomes nearly
impossible to describe a person. He is what he is. Many of the
works by Sartre address a dualism between subject and object,
the subjective consciousness and the objective human being.
Sartre considered freedom a subjective experience. Being and
Nothingness explores this dualism: "Being" is the thing-in-itself,
similar to the Hegelian Absolute and "Nothingness" refers to
freedom. Sartre wrote that freedom is the ability to define and
assign meaning to things and events. Without thought, we could
not be free. As an example, the play No Exit is about the results
of how we define ourselves -- especially those who fail to seize
the freedom to define themselves.
Being-in-itself and being-for-itself have mutually exclusive
characteristics and yet we (human reality) are entities that
combine both, which is the ontological root of our ambiguity. The
in-itself is solid, self-identical, passive and inert. It simply "is."
The for-itself is fluid, nonself-identical, and dynamic. It is the
internal negation or "nihilation" of the in-itself, on which it
depends. Viewed more concretely, this duality is cast as
"facticity" and "transcendence." The "givens" of our situation
such as our language, our environment, our previous choices and
our very selves in their function as in-itself constitute our
facticity. As conscious individuals, we transcend (surpass) this
facticity in what constitutes our "situation." (Transcendence The mental act of projecting a consciousness beyond itself,
referring to and establishing new relations with entities that are
external to the self.) (Facticity - Those features of reality that
cannot be transformed. Many things are not controlled by
anyone, especially in nature and science. Sartre recognized
these external factors, to which sentient beings can only
respond). In other words, we are always beings "in situation,"

but the precise mixture of transcendence and facticity that

forms any situation remains indeterminable, at least while we
are engaged in it. Hence Sartre concludes that we are always
"more" than our situation and that this is the ontological
foundation of our freedom. We are "condemned" to be free, in his
inflated phrase.
There is the fundamental difference between Sartre and
Krishnamurti when Sartre says that we can not be free without
thought. For Sartre, thoughts constitute the essence of En-soi.
It is with thoughts that the En-soi can be with harmony with
pour-soi. For Krishnamurti however, all thoughts are of past, he
says that thoughts can not be of present. In present there can
only be awareness or lack of awareness. In awareness there is
no place for thought, there can not be. But for Sartre, there is no
other bridge for En-soi to relate to pour-soi. For Sartre,
awareness is of situation, as in the waiter is a waiter in this
present situation, he has chosen to be a waiter, he could have
been otherwise, but at this instant he is a waiter. . . being a
waiter as pour-soi has to be lived by an en-soi to fulfil a situation.
An en-soi will transcend the situation by being a waiter. This
transcendence is possible because he is free, free to choose.
For Krishnamurti thoughts actually curb the freedom, the
chain us to past and authority.
From thought you act. From that action you learn more. So you
repeat the cycle. Experience, knowledge, memory, thought
action; from that action learn more and repeat. This is how we
are programmed. We are always doing this: having remembered
pain, in the future avoid pain by not doing the thing that will
cause pain, which becomes knowledge, and repeat that. Sexual
pleasurerepeat that. This is the movement of thought. See the
beauty of it, how mechanically thought operates.

Thought says to itself, 'I am free to operate.' Yet thought is

never free because it is based on knowledge, and knowledge is
obviously always limited. Knowledge must also be always limited
because it is part of time. (The network of thought, 1981)

So, we can understand thoughts as universal phenomena, it

is irrespective of the nationality, cast. Even the time in which we
live.
Freedom is lack of authority in negative sense; it is the
droppage of thoughts as Ive said earlier.
So, to be free for Krishnamurti will be the freedom from
conditioning, freedom from thoughts and memory and
knowledge. This freedom from is not the demand of mind, the
demand of mind will again enslave the individual in time and the
thoughts. It is the complete droppage of thoughts, it can not be
clear than this, because the incapacity of words. . .

(4): Krishnamurtis concept of freedom with reference to

awareness

Krishnamurtis vision of the present world is reminiscent of

Hobbes, the world as brutal, selfish competitive. But there is the
fundamental difference between Hobbes and Krishnamurti
because in Hobbes there is the acceptance of the world as it is,
it is natural for human being to be violent and competitive.
Hobbes would advocate the outside agency to curb this natural
brutality, competitiveness. According to Krishnamurti if we really
care, if were deeply concerned about it, then well have to
understand that that the world is the outer manifestation of
ourselves. We are cruel, fundamentally violent. This is the fact,
the fact. If we accept it, not intellectually but existentially, then
immediately well be free of it. This freedom is the result of the
awareness of the how of ones conditioning. This existence of
the outer brutality of the world, the outer hatred, the outer
competitiveness is the result of our inner brutality, inner hatred,
inner competitiveness. The fundamental change can come only
with the awareness of this fact, not intellectual awareness, but
immediate existential awareness. This awareness will bring
freedom, which is immediate, instantaneous.

So, for Krishnamurti, freedom comes not as a gradual

process, not by the constant effort of mind, but it comes as a
flash, natural as breathing. It is not freedom from and freedom to.
Both these instances of freedoms are political, they are in time.
They are not beyond the field of consciousness. The real freedom
for Krishnamurti lies beyond the field of consciousness. It is
always the present, to say verbally that Im free is not the
freedom which he is talking about. The free person will not be
verbalizing his freedom in any case. It is just like the person says
that he is happy. The moment he says that he is happy, his
happiness has already gone, it is the past of which he is talking
about.
As we are proceeding to unravel the differences between
Sartre and Krishnamurtis position on the matter of freedom,
there is one more important point which comes to my mind, their
respective position on future and past. For Sartre, past and
present form subordination to future because of the struggle of
man to become. He maintains that we act according to the
image. We are what we can become.... Ours is a process, and
our becoming is our only possibility of becoming.... Human
existence is a project, in which past and present are subordinate
to future, is the main residence of our existence, because it is
the north of our projection of us. . . We act in respect to what we
want to be. This image is our own creation, it does not condemn
us as it apparently seems, but it guides us to act. Sartre
emphatically maintains that this creation of image is necessary
for action.
For Krishnamurti however, any form of reference to past
and future is not desirable for the simple reason that it creates
the cleavage. It creates the schizophrenia. It provides the mind a
reason to benumb itself, and the moment the mind is blunt, we
lack awareness. Now, awareness is not a property of a mind,
awareness is in fact irrelevant to mind. When Im aware, there is
no mind. What is mind after all? The collection of thoughts which
are either of past or of future. In awareness there is always the
present, always this moment. There is no clock time either.
Because the clock time is also the creation of mind. What
happens when I see a bird on the wings? The bird was

somewhere else, away from my field of vision. Then it comes for

a moment in my field of vision and disappears again. Thats how
we create the time, our mind creates time. Before it was not
there, after it is not there. And the present is completely
dropped, because there is no place for present in minds time.
Present is here and now, how can we accommodate here and
now in our time? The very attempt to somehow conciliate the
present moment in time will make it a moment of past. . .

(5): some observations and questions

This awareness is very dangerous, very dangerous indeed.

When I think whether this awareness can be practiced in
actuality, the great fear arises in the mind. Maybe, the question
of practicing itself is wrong afterall, but as an intellectual
activity we need to ask this question anyhow. After examining
Sartre and Krishnamurtis position the question naturally comes
to the mind, (I hope it comes to you present here) that how far is
it executable? Of course Krishnamurti would not be happy with
this kind of intellectualisation, but since we are studying
Krishnamurti as a philosopher, (irrespective of his constant
denial of any philosophical construction) this question I think is
valid; we have a right to this question. Basically we understood
that for Krishnamurti freedom is the direct and abrupt
discontinuation with past. With This discontinuation the time,
(the clock time) disappears, evaporates. Is it possible for us to
live this timeless existence? Even now I can actually see your
fidgeting because Ive already spoken too long, (smile)!
The question of choiceless awareness is also presents
great philosophical and realistic problems. Ill stop with putting
in front of you my personal experience, please excuse me for
that. Basically the paper should be objective, but--In the evening a friend and I were talking about awareness
in the campus yesterday. We tried to become aware of everything
inside our mind with the addition of the outside environs. There
was smoke rising from our cigarettes to the heavens, and we

were discussing about awareness, were trying to be aware! How

do you say? If we were talking about awareness, if we were
trying to be aware of what was happening to us, then why in the
world were we smoking in the first place? Isnt it the case that
when you are aware you can not smoke?
So, if we were aware, really aware, we never would have
smoked a single cigarette! What is there in smoking? Lighting a
stick full of tobacco, taking that dirty smoke in, releasing it out.
Taking it in and releasing it out! The whole nonsense continues
until the cigarette is extinct or you are tired. What nonsense is
this? What folly is this? Why do I at least hanker for cigarette? If I
am aware of the hankering, then there would be no point in
smoking, Id simply be ashamed of myself, repeating this
nonsense at least ten times in a day.
But there is the problem waiting to jump at me. If I become
aware, Ill simply wont act, then every act would appear a
perfect folly. A consummated madness. I wont eat, because
eating is very violent. Extremely violent. Just look how do we
chew a piece of bread. We grind it between our teeth; we wet it
with our saliva to grind it even more perfectly. How violent. . . I
wont talk a single word in a day, just look while we are talking.
What are we doing? We are talking for what? Even the act of
talking is just a waste of energy; we go on throwing our energy
to winds. We shower our beliefs upon others, we cut them in
between because we feel that the other is just talking nonsense
and only we are right. We dont have any dialogue, yes, we do
have debate.
I cannot remain aware. However, this is not to happen; Ive
an investment in not being aware. In fact everybody have some
investment. The distinction will be that Ill be aware that I am not
aware and the others might or might not be aware.
Finally the question arises is that this awareness that I do
have an investment in not remaining aware is freedom, or simply
Sartres bad faith, that is the act of rejecting freedom? Is it only
on the intellectual plane or is it existential? Am I still rooted in
the past and can not gather courage to discontinue with past?
What is it?